Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impact of PPIs on patient focused symptomatology in GERD ABR ThomsonDivision of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaAbstract: About half of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have a normal endoscopy, so symptom assessment is the only appropriate outcome measure for these persons. Symptom assessment is also of great importance in persons with erosive esophagitis. There is currently no fully validated questionnaire to compare symptom response to treatment of patients with GERD. The aim of this review is to consider ReQuest™ assessment tool to evaluate esophageal, supra-esophageal, and infra-esophageal symptoms, as well as any modification of the patient’s quality of life. The ReQuest™ may be combined with the Los Angeles classification of esophagitis (LA A-D), to include the normal endoscopic finding in normal endoscopy reflux disease. The ReQuest™ score declines rapidly towards normal with patient treatment with a proton pump inhibitor. A proportion of patients need more than the usual 8 weeks of therapy. For example, in GERD patients with Los Angeles B-D, the ReQuest™ score falls more with pantoprazole 40 mg than with esomoprazole 40 mg after 12 weeks of therapy. Now that the simplified ReQuest in Practice™ is available, this validated brief questionnaire has potential as an instrument for use in GERD patients seen in everyday clinical practice.Keywords: complete healing, dyspepsia, erosive esophagitis, GERD symptoms, pH, ReQuest™
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".